Read the full article on Firstpost, here: https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/is-golden-age-of-international-art-house-cinema-over-dwindling-attention-span-obsession-with-box-office-numbers-to-blame-4486863.html
I was watching a video on Facebook, about the arduous restoration of the Apu trilogy, and Peter Becker, President, The Criterion Collection, had this to say: “Ray is one of the essential figures in the golden age of international art-house cinema.” Is that right? Are we past the “golden age”? If anything, isn’t this the golden age? Hasn’t the recently concluded Cannes Film Festival been, like, everywhere? Thanks to the explosion of online media (including blogs, and online film clubs and message boards that foster discussions), isn’t art-house cinema being talked about more than ever before? Hasn’t watching films become easier too? Even if your local theatre won’t play these films, isn’t there a streaming platform – or, if you are so inclined, a torrent site? Why, then, do we look so fondly at the 1950s and 60s as a golden age?
One reason is simply nostalgia. Take Hindi film music. It isn’t that good music isn’t being made today, but in the present, we are exposed to the bad music that comes along as well. But over time, a sort of sifting happens – and only the good remains. So when we look back, it appears that the 60s, say, had nothing but good songs, and no one – singer, lyricist, music director – ever had a bad day. Another reason is numbers. Not many films were being made earlier, so not much music was being produced. The good-to-bad ratio was still… good. But when quantity goes up, the quality comes down. It isn’t that every art filmmaker was making gems back then, but because there was only a handful of them – or at least, because we knew only about a handful of them – it appeared that every film was a major event. Today, while giving thanks that there are many more, we also know there are going to be turkeys.
But I think the most important reason for the (relative) decline of the cachet of art-house cinema is the late-1960s to early-1980s “New Hollywood” movement, where filmmakers like Hal Ashby, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman and Francis Ford Coppola broadened the definition of “mainstream” in American cinema. Till then, there was a distinct line between US and non-US cinema. Hollywood was dominated by the studios, which meant that certain topics were taboo. Let’s pick a year out of a hat: say, 1955. By then, American filmmakers were certainly exploring darker, more “adult” subjects – Charles Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter and Otto Preminger’s The Man With the Golden Arm, to name just two films that year that were the antithesis of family-friendly Technicolor entertainers like Oklahoma and To Catch a Thief.
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2018 Firstpost.
Baradwaj Rangan 
MANK
May 29, 2018
Sheer Coincidence. was watching The Night of the Hunter just yesterday.Fab film
But this antithesis of family-friendly fare was there even before say as early as the 30’s with gritty gangster tales starring Cagney and Robinson or the film Noir classics of the 40’s. the golden age of european art films – the Godards, Traffauts were all inspired from the golden age of hollywood studio films
And the answer to your titular question is right there in your post itself. lot of these art filmmakers have become formula filmmakers. dishing out formula films thats going to win oscars or film festival awards.cant blame them either, the world has become so politically correct and awards now given out to films for their good intentions or universally acceptable themes rather than for filmmaking skills
LikeLike
vagabonder
May 29, 2018
As someone who watches an awful lot of “art-house” cinema and catches a fair bit of cinema on the “festival circuit” and have done so for over 20 years, I disagree quite strongly. Although I dislike the term “arthouse” (I would prefer to call them “independent” or “alternative” films), it has always existed for the sole reason for providing a counterpoint to the big box office draws. And that has been the case since the inception of cinema. So for every big studio film like Gone With the Wind, you had a subversive filmmaker like Kenneth Anger who provided an alternative. For every John Wayne vehicle, you had a Sam Fuller or Nicholas Ray making films against the current. And they have always been less successful than box office draws. You mention Night of the Hunter and Man with the Golden Arm. Neither made a lot of money but live on (albeit only in blogs and esoteric film magazines) as significant films of their time.
You say that you don’t get to see technologically daring fare like 2001 in the arthouse scene anymore. But then 2001 was clearly a one-off in cinematic history where unlimited budget met unlimited ambition. On the other hand, do we, with metronomic regularity, see films that surprise us and make us shake our heads in disbelief at what we’ve seen? The answer, from my perspective, would be yes. Just to name the titles from the last couple of years that have wowed both me and a section of the critical community, each unique and employing daring new narrative rhythms to tackle their subjects – Toni Erdmann, Tower, Nocturama, Manchester by the Sea,The Forbidden Room, mother!, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, The Florida Project.
As for criticism, there is a better quality of writing and access to film literature than there was when I began reading seriously in the late 90s, your site being one of them. This response may appear a bit caustic but I read every review of yours and appreciate your reading of Indian films in particular. Just my rather long-winded way of saying alternative cinema isn’t quite dead yet and is very much alive and well and hopefully will be in the future. Cheers 🙂
LikeLike
shaviswa
May 29, 2018
Glad to know that there is declining interest in “art movies”. I have always wondered why such movies are made that can never draw in the crowds. It need not be a Blockbuster but there needs to be some minimum target audience that guarantees profit. It is a criminal offence to make a movie that no one but film festival goers want to see.
Films are part of the show business. Yes – business. So let us stop pretending that the money made from films is less important.
LikeLike
Madan
May 29, 2018
“Films are part of the show business. ” – And show business is only a subset of art, sometimes veering far enough from art in the name of commercial considerations to be barely art at all. Why would it be criminal to make films that don’t attract much of an audience if whomsoever funded the film was perfectly aware that this would be the case? Who complains when films tank? Not those who fund arthouse films but those who funded what they thought would be a blockbuster but instead turned out to be a turkey (Bombay Velvet, Jaga Jasoos). Every activity in the world is not dictated only by the consideration of return on investment. If you wish that were the case, perhaps your attention is better directed to ecommerce firms burning through capital chasing metrics like GMVs with profitability not even being mentioned as a goal.
LikeLike
shaviswa
May 29, 2018
@Madan – I don’t understand why would a producer want to invest in a film that is guaranteed to make a loss. Unless of course, the producer is financed by someone who does not care for the money. why should a film be made just to indulge the film maker?
I had raised the same question after that Myskin-Ram interview where the two climb on to a high horse about making films of international quality and how that is not being appreciated by critics. A film critic (the folks who review commercial films including Brangan) are reviewing films for their target audience which prefers commercial films than these “art house” films that do not appeal to their sense nor has any entertainment value in them.
It is an interesting paradox though – when there were not many channels to reach the audience, you had a lot of these artsy film makers. Today with so many avenues to reach the audience, there is a dearth. Maybe, they have also realized that it is sensible to make films that people appreciate and bring in the moolah than a select few at film festivals.
LikeLike
brangan
May 29, 2018
shaviswa: Just because people don’t throng theatres, doesn’t mean the film is necessarily a loss. If the budgets are kept reasonable, it’s possible to break even or even make a profit through VOD, streaming services, festivals sales, etc.
The primary purpose of these films is to explore an art form — which may or may not be of interest to you, but there are quite a few to whom is this quite valuable.
LikeLike
shaviswa
May 30, 2018
@Brangan so long as people can make money, there should be no issue. My rant is about those who make films despite knowing they are likely to lose money. Or get frustrated that people have rejected “their work of art”
LikeLike
Madan
May 30, 2018
@shaviswa: You have answered your own question. Where the financier does not mind funding a loss making proposition if it holds artistic value for him/her. It is no different from crowdfunding except that it isn’t being funded by a crowd.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
May 30, 2018
As someone who likes the purely commercial entertainers for, well, their entertainment quotient, and who watches her fair share of ‘arthouse’ or independent cinema, whether it is in Hindi, Indian regional languages, or European cinema, I don’t agree that international arthouse cinema is dead. It is just that there are far more avenues now for us to watch – I frequently end up watching at our arthouse cinema, on Netflix or Amazon Prime, or when some local film society like Belmont Film Festival shows them. I don’t often catch them upon release, but I do get to watch them at some point on one of these portals. I caught Court at the Belmont Film Festival; I watched Mr and Mrs Iyer at an interactive session with Aparna Sen at Wellesley College, and Margarita’s Straw at UMass Amherst, which also had an interactive session with Shonali Bose. European arthouse cinema, and American independent cinema play regularly at either Coolidge Theatre or Showcase Cinemas Worcester North.
Shaiviswa, I don’t think any filmmaker makes films knowing they are likely to lose money. They make films because they are passionate about the stories they want to tell. One of my friends is a FTII-trained film-maker who makes children’s films in India – she won the National Award a couple of years ago. Her movies are available on YouTube and on NFDC DVDs. I don’t think she makes oodles of money out of them. But she tells heartwarming stories of children who live in disadvantaged societies and does so because she cannot dream of doing anything else. They are wonderful films but will not see a wide release.
Films are primarily an artist’s expression; commercial interests are important – I doubt you will find one filmmaker who says he doesn’t care that his films don’t make money. But the lack of money doesn’t dampen their passion. And that’s highly credible.
LikeLike
brangan
May 30, 2018
Not saying art cinema is DEAD. Just that the ‘golden age’ — when it was really a very big deal — may be over.
LikeLike
sanjana
May 30, 2018
There are too many of them now and thus the arthouse films lost that rare quality. Its not a big deal anymore. But nostalgia makes those films great because they were the pioneers and originals. In that sense that golden era tag is justified.
LikeLike
Rohan
May 31, 2018
Interesting thread and I do think the golden age of non mainstream cinema is only just beginning simply because of the improvements in streaming technology (and bandwidth in countries like India). Do you know the curated arthouse streaming site Mubi? I was surprised and thrilled to find out that (after the UK and the US in that order) their third highest number of subscribers out of more than a 100 countries is India.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
May 31, 2018
A few years ago I bought a used book on Satyajit Ray. The previous owner left a clipping of a New Yorker cartoon from the 1980s of someone at a movie theater concession stand saying to his friend something like “somehow I don’t think Satyajit Ray and Milk Duds are a good combination.” The New Yorker is aimed at urban elites (specifically New Yorkers), but I still thought it was remarkable that there was a time when Ray was well-known enough in the US to be referenced in a New Yorker cartoon.
LikeLike
Paul
June 1, 2018
This won’t help me get popular here but influential users like Madan are very much responsible for the death of international art-house cinema.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 1, 2018
@Paul – ???
LikeLike
Vivek narain
June 3, 2018
The golden age of most genres is over, mainstream as well as art house. Movies like Logan’s Run The Matrix Groundhog Day Adjustment Bureau etc. may only be daring indicaters of the tip of the iceberg, we are living within.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 3, 2018
Finally , a Vivek narain comment that i fully understand and agree with 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person